Young People in Care
Debate between Graham Stuart and Steve McCabe(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve McCabe
That is exactly the point. We should concentrate on continuity and relationships. At times we are sidetracked by posts and appointments.
I want to move on to local authorities, whose responsibilities change when a young person turns 18. Too many people think that local authorities interpret that change as meaning that their responsibilities diminish, despite the fact that they have a continuing obligation to those young people until the age of 21, or 25 for those still in education and training. As we have heard several times, the Minister has recently extended the previous Government’s pilots to create a new obligation or arrangement for staying put in foster care until the age of 21. Like others, I think that that is a welcome measure, although I urge him to look at authorities that are trying to avoid paying foster rates, arguing that such arrangements are in fact board and lodging provision. I have recently been made aware that that is happening in one or two places, and the Minister will agree that that is certainly not what he had in mind.
I welcome the part of the Government’s response to the report which says that they believe that fewer young people should leave care before the age of 18 unless there are exceptional circumstances. In his reply, can the Minister say a little more about what practical steps the Government will take to translate this belief into reality? Despite personal advisers and strengthened guidance, the Committee found that young people are often given neither a choice of placement nor the opportunity to voice a preference. The Coram Group, an excellent organisation, said in its evidence:
“The young person’s views are frequently not adequately considered and advocacy support is vital to ensure this happens”.
An independent advocate is a statutory requirement, yet it is not a service that is always offered or that enough young people are made aware of.
The Government say in their response that they have given the Children’s Commissioner a new power to provide advice and assistance to individual children in receipt of social care services and to make representations on behalf of care leavers. Am I right in thinking that the commissioner has no real new powers? Is the Minister satisfied that the power to make representations is a sufficient new power for the Children’s Commissioner? The Government argue that they have strengthened the guidance on pathway planning and point to the fact that directors of children’s services are now required to sign off the arrangements for any 16 or 17-year-old leaving care. However, as we have heard from a number of speakers today, the evidence suggests that the pathway plans are weak, and one glaring omission is the failure to consider maintaining positive relationships with siblings and other people thought to be important in the young person’s life.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Stockport (Ann Coffey) both drew attention to the impact that this can have, particularly when it is almost ignored in the planning arrangements. Like others, I wonder how we can expect young people to develop into normal, well-adjusted adults if we deny them the opportunities that we take for granted for our own children and many others. I welcome the addition to the guidance on the pathway plans in this respect and I trust that the Minister will continue to focus on this area in the months ahead.
One of the inevitable results of the “Staying Put” initiative is that, as we heard, it has raised the question of those in residential care and the related issue of staying close. There appears to be a perception in some local authorities that their responsibilities decrease when a child reaches 16. That is certainly the sense among young people who feel that 16 is the cut-off point when they are required to leave care. This came across in the evidence that the Committee took. I am not sure about the equality aspect of “Staying Put” for non-foster care. I do not know whether it would withstand a legal challenge. From his previous incarnation the Minister might be much more familiar with how the law would deal with that. Aside from that, my own view is that 16 is the age for most young people to set out on their own. Like the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) I attended a recent meeting of the all-party group for looked-after children, where many of those said that even at the age of 18 they did not feel that they were ready to move on.
I know that this is a difficult matter for many people. I have some doubts about whether it is realistic for someone to continue in a children’s home to the age of 21 or beyond, although I am rather sceptical of the validity of some of the counter-arguments. Particularly on safeguarding, I tend to agree with the Every Child Leaving Care Matters group, which said that it is difficult
“to see how a young person who is settled in a children’s home and enjoys positive relationships with staff and peers should suddenly become a safeguarding risk at 18 when they never were before.”
I am keen that the Government set to work as soon as possible on addressing this matter. We have heard about some of the work involving the National Children’s Bureau, the Who Cares? Trust, Barnardo’s and others. Will the Minister tell us how much money from the innovation programme has gone into that work to date, and what time scale he is considering for further proposals indicating his plans for staying close and “Staying Put”?
Mr Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman says that he has misgivings about the extension and that some of the arguments are bogus or weak. What are his concerns? As a Committee, we made these proposals in a cross-party spirit in the hope that parties such as his would adopt them and put them in their manifestos. Why will he not be making that recommendation to his party’s manifesto group?
Steve McCabe
I said that I had some doubts. The hon. Member for Calder Valley said that the difference is that there is not necessarily the same stability with regard to children’s homes. The situation is not guaranteed in the same way. Fostering arrangements, by definition, tend to be stable. The turnover of staff and other children at a children’s home means that the situation may not be the same. That is my major reservation.
Mr Stuart
The idea of staying put, wherever it is, is that it is suitable for all concerned. The aim is not to impose it on anybody. Like our recommendation on extending care services to the age of 25 for those who are not looking for a job or training, it is there if people want it, and if it is not appropriate, there is no suggestion that it should have to happen.
Steve McCabe
I entirely accept the point that the Committee Chairman is making. The hon. Member for Calder Valley said that there may well be options. My point is simply that the situation is not directly comparable. I am minded that we look at this carefully. We cannot say that children in foster care get the benefit of “Staying Put” until the age of 21 and children in children’s homes are completely disregarded. That would not be acceptable, and I do not think that anyone is saying that. I am simply suggesting that the situation may be slightly different.
I want to take up the Committee’s point about the problems of making full-time education and training central to continuing support until the age of 25. We were all rather encouraged when the Minister said in Committee that he intended to rewrite the guidance so that it would be sufficiently clear that he was concerned about those who were in danger of falling through the net. So far, the rewritten guidance does not appear to have achieved that. Surely the real issue is that it is too easy for those we refer to as NEETs— not in education, employment or training—to disappear. Unless directors of children’s services and others are under a specific obligation to track and monitor these young people, there is every danger that they will fall by the wayside.
I want to turn to “other arrangements”. As we have heard, the Committee was very concerned about accommodation that it felt was not of an acceptable standard and might fail the statutory guidance tests of being suitable for the child in the light of his or her needs, including health needs, and of the responsible authority having satisfied itself as to the character and suitability of the landlord. I acknowledge that the YMCA said in evidence to the Committee that some local authorities provide a decent variety of accommodation, and I do not dismiss the fact that there are examples of success out there. However, Ofsted found significant variations in the quality and sufficiency of accommodation for care leavers. The Who Cares? Trust has also reported examples of unsafe and unsuitable accommodation. I will not go over them all, as they have been mentioned by other speakers, but they include people being threatened or assaulted; living with those with drink and drugs problems; and having dirty accommodation infested with bedbugs and cockroaches. The British Association of Social Workers has said that it is
“firmly of the view that the government needs to apply regulatory duties to all accommodation providers who accommodate looked after children in order that they are appropriately safeguarded and the provision meets acceptable standards.”
I noticed that the report highlights an interesting dilemma on regulation. It is fair to point out that one witness warned of the risk that if regulation is too onerous it will stifle creativity in support arrangements and inhibit independence projects. I was interested in Catch22’s suggestion for a national standards framework, which, if I have read the report accurately, the Committee appears to have liked. I am not sure that the Government’s proposals go anything like far enough, and I urge the Minister to reflect again on that point. About 3,000 young people are covered by other arrangements, and that is an awful lot of lives at risk.
16-plus Care Options
Debate between Graham Stuart and Steve McCabe
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber today with so many members of the Select Committee and other colleagues as we launch our report, “Into independence, not out of care: 16 plus care options”. Our report on 16-plus care options is about a group of young people that is often overlooked and a policy area that is unfashionable and forgotten. We first raised our concerns in our “Children first” report, published in October 2012. During our inquiry into residential children’s homes, the report for which was published in March, we became increasingly concerned about the quality of care and level of support provided for older adolescents as they moved towards greater independence and adulthood, often because of a misguided belief that they are more resilient than younger children.
This inquiry confirmed just how serious the shortcomings of 16-plus care options are. Our inquiry was launched on 22 January and set out the following terms of reference: the kinds of accommodation provided for young people aged 16 and 17 who are looked after by local authorities; the suitability, safety and regulatory nature of alternative accommodation; whether staying put should apply to those in residential children’s homes; and whether the provision of alternative accommodation should be extended to the age of 21.
We wanted to make sure that our inquiry was informed by young people affected by the issues we were considering, so we held an informal seminar at the outset of the inquiry to hear the views of young people and care leavers. We visited Ipswich to see examples of “other arrangements”, as they are described in the jargon, and met local authority officers from the region and service providers as well as the Suffolk children in care council. We had nearly 40 submissions of written evidence from a wide range of witnesses and we heard all evidence from two panels of witnesses before questioning the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place on the Front Bench.
Our report makes three fundamental recommendations. First, the Department for Education must consult on a framework of individual regulatory oversight for all accommodation that falls within “other arrangements” to ensure suitability while allowing for diversity of provision. These “other arrangements” are those in which 22% of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds live, and we found that too often they are neither safe nor suitable. Efforts are made to ensure the safety and suitability of provision for children and young people in other settings—childminders, foster carers, children’s homes, schools and sixth-form colleges are each and every one of them regulated and inspected, yet “other arrangements” for some of the most vulnerable young people in this country are not.
Current quality assurance relies on Ofsted tracking a sample of cases. This would not be an acceptable approach for any of the settings that I have just listed, and it should not be acceptable for the accommodation in which some of society’s most vulnerable young people are housed. Individual regulation and inspection is the only way, we believe, to ensure suitability.
The second key proposal is that the DFE must consult urgently local authorities to establish a reasonable time frame for the absolute ban on the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for looked-after young people. The Department says that bed and breakfasts are not suitable for this group, yet they continue to be used, sometimes for a long period. We heard shocking accounts of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation which was not only unsuitable, but made the young people feel frightened and threatened.
We recognise the negative implications of a hastily introduced outright ban. That is why we urge the DFE to consult local authorities and establish a realistic time frame in which alternative emergency arrangements can be found, settled and established. This will require local authorities to be creative and to work together, but it is vital that the urgency of the situation is not lost. We know from the performance of some councils that it can be done and is being done, so let it be done everywhere and for all.
In the meantime, the message is plain: bed and breakfasts are not suitable and should be used only in extreme, emergency situations, and even then never for more than a few days before the ban comes into force. In addition, local authority children’s services should report to the Department the numbers of looked-after young people placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation so that we have a clear picture of how much this unsuitable accommodation is being used to house these vulnerable young people.
Our third key recommendation is that looked-after young people living in residential children’s homes should have the right to stay there until they are 21, just as those living in foster care now can, thanks to changes brought in by this Government. We recommend that the DFE extend Staying Put to residential children’s homes. We were not convinced by the Minister’s arguments against an extension of this policy. It may not be in the best interest of some young people, or their preference, to stay in their residential children’s home, but many who are settled and thriving would greatly benefit from the stability of staying put in the home which is their home.
The DFE argues that the quality of children’s homes must improve before it will allow young people to stay beyond their 18th birthday. That argument does not bear much scrutiny. The most recent figures from Ofsted inspections at the beginning of this year show that for overall effectiveness 68% of children’s homes inspected were judged good or outstanding, and just 6% were found to be inadequate. Furthermore, forcing young people to move at the age of 18 from a home that may be judged good or better by Ofsted to unregulated and sometimes unsuitable settings makes no sense.
In addition to these fundamental recommendations, we found that there are several other aspects of 16-plus care options in desperate need of attention, which can be split into three broad areas. First, our report focuses on the planning and preparation for a young person’s move to independence. In particular, young people need to know more and have the chance to say more, while also being given the support and encouragement to maintain the relationships that matter most to them.
Secondly, our report sets out the necessary steps to ensure minimal disruption and maximum stability during a young person’s transition to adulthood and independence. This includes offering a safety net if life takes a turn for the worst; providing support to the age of 25, without exception; and providing the much needed peace of mind as a young person prepares for important exams, by ensuring the stability of their placement at that time. Thirdly, we stress the importance of providing options, be it staying in “other arrangements” until the age of 21, or simultaneously meeting the wish for independence and the need for continuing support through Staying Close, which is where accommodation is provided close to, for instance, a residential children’s home where a young person has developed solid relationships with trusted adults.
We were deeply impressed by the young people we met, who spoke to us openly and honestly about their personal experiences. Their contributions added value to our inquiry and confirmed our view that these young people deserve better. This report is a step towards ensuring that they get it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I commend the Education Committee on an excellent report. There is a host of questions that I would like to ask, but I know that Madam Deputy Speaker would not want me to do that, so I shall confine myself to one and seek out the Chairman and other members of the Committee on another occasion to explore many of the issues raised in the report, including the use of personal advisers and extending Staying Put.
I was particularly shocked by the bed-and-breakfast revelations. Was the Committee able to form a picture of the likely numbers of young people in care who are required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond a period of 28 days? The Committee was right to say that an immediate ban would be problematic and that there should be a period of reflection, but does the Chairman think it advisable for the Government to consider an immediate restriction that ensures that no young person in care can be required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than 28 days?
Mr Stuart
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. We did not specify in the report precisely what that limit should be, but we are entirely in sympathy with that thinking. We would be more ambitious. We think 28 days is outrageously long. A stay of a week would be too long; probably five days would be acceptable. The case that was put to us is that at 11 o’clock on a Friday night—the famous 11 o’clock on a Friday night case—a place must be found for a child. Okay, but by the following Wednesday, the whole power of the local authority, which is in the position of parent, cannot find something different for the child? We found that hard to believe. We did not specify the duration because we wanted to give maximum flexibility, but a lot less than 28 days would be the collective view of my Committee.